Last I checked, "contempt for the law" wasn't, by itself, a crime (though it might cast into doubt toothless agreements to follow the law in the future, when one has violated it in the past and stands to benefit from further similar violations). "Contempt of court" was. I respect the courts that try to determine the law, even if I sometimes disagree with their conclusions. Microsoft was, among other things, demonstrating contempt for the court itself in its testimony to Jackson - which is part of what set him off.
I see panic. I see chaos. And I see third parties offering up those services of Microsoft that were of any benefit, for instance providing technical support that is actually better than Microsoft's even though the providers theoretically have less internal knowledge of MS product.
I also see a bunch of lawyers realizing that they can't get away with blaming the computer vendor for their mistakes so much. Perhaps those who view business as "who can I sue" instead of "provide value to the customer" will find their jobs that much more difficult...but I see that as a good thing.
As for actual harm coming from such an act? I see lots of pontification, lots of angry and confused people of great self importance. But for the people who actually have to work with the stuff, I don't see that much of an immediate change, and what little there would be, would be positive.
In short: yes, I have thought about this. IMHO, it could be an immediate benefit from the moment it goes into force.
Really? Prove that the company has demonstrated it has no intention of ever obeying the law when such interferes with its profits. Prove that the company has demonstrated, in Jackson's courtroom if nowhere else (and there's plenty of "else"), utter and sincere contempt for the courts and the law. Prove that it really has inflicted damages at least equalling its net worth.
That's all doable, though I'll admit the last one is not a cakewalk like the first to. That said, if all that is proved in front of the SCOTUS, even they might well uphold the punishment.
Feh. Linux has easily as many human beings supporting its core OS as Microsoft has developers period. (Granted, this doesn't count the loads of third party Windows developers, or the non-developer Windows users, but still...) The economy will keep ticking along just fine even with a several billion dollar a year hit, and those thousands of people can easily find work supporting already deployed Windows applications.
The only people who will be irreparably damaged will be the top executives and other investors of Microsoft - since Microsoft has already been found guilty, irreparable harm is legally justified - and those who place excessive faith in said company - "excessive faith" of the type that causes ongoing untold damage (such as relying on IIS to be a stable, secure Web server). Hopefully, damage to the latter group would be less than the self-inflicted damage that this action would help stop.
Are you kidding? "Not for sale in MA"...well, gee, I guess they'll just have to sell boxen preloaded with Linux, maybe with Wine already set up so the customers can run most Windows apps.
I think they know it'd backfire just that badly. But I wouldn't bet my life on Microsoft's intelligence...
Well, even if breakup were out (and I don't see anything that outright forbids a breakup, just that the specific version of said remedy that Jackson wrote up has been tossed out because of its author), Microsoft could be fined, oh, say, its entire net worth.
Or maybe the corporation could just be seized and dissolved, all its assets made property of the government (for physical stuff) or public domain (for intellectual property). Now, that would send a message, one that the Bush administration would have a hard time overturning - especially if the Supreme Court backed up the seizure. It'd help if it was spun to the public as "you get free Windows from now on": sure, the more knowledgable people (like most Slashdot readers) would know the further implications, including down sides, but most Americans would selectively perceive only that their neighborhood computer vendor could now sell computers for cheap, and given them a bunch of choices for what comes on it (even though they may well wind up picking what they already do: the option to perceive and ignore bad choices has inherent value, to them).
It was expected that most would not. Still, depending on just how far the feds punk out...is there any viable way for the DOJ to interfere with the states' case? Say, harrass the attorney generals or bury their staffs under paperwork?
It's also of note that the judge has to sign off on the deal being "in the public interest". If she comes to the conclusion that Microsoft has a demonstrated history of violating and/or ignoring conduct remedies, therefore a pure conduct remedy will probably be treated likewise, therefore such a remedy is equivalent to no remedy, and the lack of a remedy is not in the public interest...
Maybe they're thinking the states won't let themselves be bought out, especially with this example for their public support to roast them on if they display weakness. Or maybe - just maybe - the investors have a conscience in this case.
What about decompiled code? Is source code that has been generated from object code any less expressive?
Or is this just the court's way of saying it'd rather have source code than compiled binaries? As in, "if you can read the code and make sure it does what it claims, it's protected free speech; if you can not read the code, then it may be illegal". Add in the fairly obvious logical progression to making open source the only legally protected option when the thing that the code does is claimed as "illegal" by anybody who can sue, and from there to lawsuit-phobic businesses jumping on open source, and...
You mean the MPAA's profits. And it seems to be a gamble: sometimes, the Constitution is supreme over industry profits; sometimes, it's the other way around. It should always be that the Constitution is the highest law of the land by definition, but logic is not infallably present.
Of course you know the solution to the problem presented in the story: sign it if you have to, then route the illegal stuff through people who don't care. Don't give 'em a reason to make an example of you, until you've got your fingers on the puppet strings too.
Agreed. And the problem is...if two applications agree to use a certain XML schema, then they have a predetermined interchange format by definition.
I'm wondering is a better way of doing things would be to use RDF as the semantics are embedded with the data, and the syntax is easy to read both for machines and humans.
Some format where the machines can extract meaning from the data itself, without prior knowledge of the specifics of the data format (that is, beyond "it's in an XML tag-like structure" or something like that) is what XML was sold as. Unfortunately, as XML is typically implemented, it falls short.
Any decent engineer will tell you that it is not realistic to build new or retrofit existing buildings against this sort of attack.
Sure they would, if the building's valuable enough and the client has enough money to spend (as for, say, Cheyenne Mountain). Of course, I can also see a lot of indecent engineers taking advantage of rich clients who only think their headquarters are as valuable - to terrorists, to the public, or even to themselves (in terms of continued operation during disruption and ability to replace) - as a military target.
It would require a massive conspiracy even to attempt that.
Not even. Two field cops, one person to run the paperwork (maybe one of said cops), and a culture of brotherhood and silence to give winks and nods to these types of practices so long as there's not overwhelming proof of them. Unless you mean merely the attitude of "always give a fellow cop the benefit of the doubt, to the point of never investigating without evidence" is itself a conspiracy...in which case, said conspiracy already exists, in many districts.
First, this bill relates to delay of notification of warrants executed by Federal law enforcement, whereas you would go to the local police when you discover that your house has been broken into. So the Feds and the locals would have to be in cahoots.
Right. And the locals would get the official explanation that a "don't tell the suspect" search was conducted. Unless the Feds thought that maybe the locals would investigate, in which case the locals wouldn't be told about the warrant, or about the Feds being present, either. If they did investigate, the Feds could easily say the agents were somewhere else (misinformation, or denial of information, for any questions about information the public "shouldn't" know about already being standard procedure).
Second, this bill explicitly prohibits the seizure of any "tangible property" under any warrants whose notification is delayed pursuant to this section. Geez, read the friggin' thing! Skim it, even. It's a pretty hard provision to miss, even on a cursory inspection.
Yes. And, officially, no "tangible property" was taken in this scenario. The thievery itself remains illegal. The breakin to allow the theivery is legal, and cops are presumed innocent like everyone else. (There's better excuses, but for example: "Well, we did leave the window open while we searched; maybe the thief came in behind us, and looted the bedroom while we searched the kitchen?")
Third, the Feds don't get to bury the warrant indefinitely just because they don't indict you. A judge would have to continually grant extensions to the delay.
Just make the warrant explicitly say "until the case comes to trial" or similar. The trick is to word it so it becomes indefinite despite its initial intent.
I don't suppose we could somehow convince AOL to ship this code on space shuttles? I don't mean NASA's shuttles, I mean manufacture more until we're sick of seeing them (or, at least, receipts for us to pick them up at the nearest spaceport) in our mailboxes...;)
Then let me spell out a basic example of the way these powers can be abused:
Cops claim that $PERSON$ is a terrorist. They say they have evidence, but can not reveal it for reasons of national security. Cops request warrant to search, notification of which will be delayed "until the case comes to trial". If one judge refuses, another one might grant. Eventually, some judge acquiesces and signs the warrant. Or perhaps they forge the judge's signature: it only has to be good enough to pass cursory review, since they have no intention of actually presenting it in court.
Cops raid $TARGET$'s house, office, and/or other real estate, removing as "evidence" any cash or easily pawnable goods. Pawnable goods go to a local pawn shop, never even making it back to the police station. Cash is pocketed by the cops doing the search, minus any necessary bribes to other involved parties.
Officially, the search turns up no evidence, so the investigation is dropped. However, the warrant is still hidden "until the case comes to trial", so $VICTIM$ only knows that a robbery has been committed. Any investigation of the robbery will lead to nothing, an innocent scapegoat, or some cops doing a perfectly legal search which has been documented as turning up nothing (and, since the warrant is still under legal supression, $VICTIM$ can not be told of this earlier search).
Would that it were so, friend. Unfortunately, a senator that all the other senators despise is unlikely to be an effective senator, and as such is unlikely to be able to obtain for his or her state its fair share of pork, kickbacks, and other corruptive monies (not to mention more legitimate benefits, on those occasions when any are to be had). This results in that state getting the perceived shaft, which tends to disappoint the voters.
Good God man, give the guy a break. Its not like going to Windows Update from Linux is a crime (yet...). What, that doesn't count under the DMCA as circumventing Microsoft's "effective" access control of tryiing to be the only OS game in town?
Maybe a different database? "You search your index; we'll search ours. Sure, our results will overlap, but we'll have some of the answers you don't and vice versa." Said differentiation will occur naturally unless strong efforts are made to keep Google's and Altavista's databases in sync.
Speed. Checking the sites on every search would take much longer than simply checking an internal database.
Re:I can't see these _not_ getting foxed.
on
Ultima Revived
·
· Score: 1
Yes. And it didn't have to be explained - it was pretty clear from the context - though the poster decided to put the entymology of the word up to give it more precise context.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I checked, "contempt for the law" wasn't, by itself, a crime (though it might cast into doubt toothless agreements to follow the law in the future, when one has violated it in the past and stands to benefit from further similar violations). "Contempt of court" was. I respect the courts that try to determine the law, even if I sometimes disagree with their conclusions. Microsoft was, among other things, demonstrating contempt for the court itself in its testimony to Jackson - which is part of what set him off.
I see panic. I see chaos. And I see third parties offering up those services of Microsoft that were of any benefit, for instance providing technical support that is actually better than Microsoft's even though the providers theoretically have less internal knowledge of MS product.
I also see a bunch of lawyers realizing that they can't get away with blaming the computer vendor for their mistakes so much. Perhaps those who view business as "who can I sue" instead of "provide value to the customer" will find their jobs that much more difficult...but I see that as a good thing.
As for actual harm coming from such an act? I see lots of pontification, lots of angry and confused people of great self importance. But for the people who actually have to work with the stuff, I don't see that much of an immediate change, and what little there would be, would be positive.
In short: yes, I have thought about this. IMHO, it could be an immediate benefit from the moment it goes into force.
Really? Prove that the company has demonstrated it has no intention of ever obeying the law when such interferes with its profits. Prove that the company has demonstrated, in Jackson's courtroom if nowhere else (and there's plenty of "else"), utter and sincere contempt for the courts and the law. Prove that it really has inflicted damages at least equalling its net worth.
That's all doable, though I'll admit the last one is not a cakewalk like the first to. That said, if all that is proved in front of the SCOTUS, even they might well uphold the punishment.
Feh. Linux has easily as many human beings supporting its core OS as Microsoft has developers period. (Granted, this doesn't count the loads of third party Windows developers, or the non-developer Windows users, but still...) The economy will keep ticking along just fine even with a several billion dollar a year hit, and those thousands of people can easily find work supporting already deployed Windows applications.
The only people who will be irreparably damaged will be the top executives and other investors of Microsoft - since Microsoft has already been found guilty, irreparable harm is legally justified - and those who place excessive faith in said company - "excessive faith" of the type that causes ongoing untold damage (such as relying on IIS to be a stable, secure Web server). Hopefully, damage to the latter group would be less than the self-inflicted damage that this action would help stop.
Are you kidding? "Not for sale in MA"...well, gee, I guess they'll just have to sell boxen preloaded with Linux, maybe with Wine already set up so the customers can run most Windows apps.
I think they know it'd backfire just that badly. But I wouldn't bet my life on Microsoft's intelligence...
Well, even if breakup were out (and I don't see anything that outright forbids a breakup, just that the specific version of said remedy that Jackson wrote up has been tossed out because of its author), Microsoft could be fined, oh, say, its entire net worth.
Or maybe the corporation could just be seized and dissolved, all its assets made property of the government (for physical stuff) or public domain (for intellectual property). Now, that would send a message, one that the Bush administration would have a hard time overturning - especially if the Supreme Court backed up the seizure. It'd help if it was spun to the public as "you get free Windows from now on": sure, the more knowledgable people (like most Slashdot readers) would know the further implications, including down sides, but most Americans would selectively perceive only that their neighborhood computer vendor could now sell computers for cheap, and given them a bunch of choices for what comes on it (even though they may well wind up picking what they already do: the option to perceive and ignore bad choices has inherent value, to them).
It was expected that most would not. Still, depending on just how far the feds punk out...is there any viable way for the DOJ to interfere with the states' case? Say, harrass the attorney generals or bury their staffs under paperwork?
It's also of note that the judge has to sign off on the deal being "in the public interest". If she comes to the conclusion that Microsoft has a demonstrated history of violating and/or ignoring conduct remedies, therefore a pure conduct remedy will probably be treated likewise, therefore such a remedy is equivalent to no remedy, and the lack of a remedy is not in the public interest...
Maybe they're thinking the states won't let themselves be bought out, especially with this example for their public support to roast them on if they display weakness. Or maybe - just maybe - the investors have a conscience in this case.
Yeah, right, what am I thinking...
What about decompiled code? Is source code that has been generated from object code any less expressive?
Or is this just the court's way of saying it'd rather have source code than compiled binaries? As in, "if you can read the code and make sure it does what it claims, it's protected free speech; if you can not read the code, then it may be illegal". Add in the fairly obvious logical progression to making open source the only legally protected option when the thing that the code does is claimed as "illegal" by anybody who can sue, and from there to lawsuit-phobic businesses jumping on open source, and...
You mean the MPAA's profits. And it seems to be a gamble: sometimes, the Constitution is supreme over industry profits; sometimes, it's the other way around. It should always be that the Constitution is the highest law of the land by definition, but logic is not infallably present.
Hear, hear. Sadly, only those who deign to look at games with '80s graphics will ever see it.
If you want a slightly more action-oriented RTS, how about Carrier Command? Now *that* was a good concept...
Of course you know the solution to the problem presented in the story: sign it if you have to, then route the illegal stuff through people who don't care. Don't give 'em a reason to make an example of you, until you've got your fingers on the puppet strings too.
Well, if the hoax comments are true, it'll have to use the stable, third-party-developer friendly, fully documented interface from Microsoft.
You know, vaporware.
Agreed. And the problem is...if two applications agree to use a certain XML schema, then they have a predetermined interchange format by definition.
I'm wondering is a better way of doing things would be to use RDF as the semantics are embedded with the data, and the syntax is easy to read both for machines and humans.
Some format where the machines can extract meaning from the data itself, without prior knowledge of the specifics of the data format (that is, beyond "it's in an XML tag-like structure" or something like that) is what XML was sold as. Unfortunately, as XML is typically implemented, it falls short.
Your tax dollars at work: not wanting to play favorite, the government buys from everybody, regardless of whether the bought stuff even works. Right?
Any decent engineer will tell you that it is not realistic to build new or retrofit existing buildings against this sort of attack.
Sure they would, if the building's valuable enough and the client has enough money to spend (as for, say, Cheyenne Mountain). Of course, I can also see a lot of indecent engineers taking advantage of rich clients who only think their headquarters are as valuable - to terrorists, to the public, or even to themselves (in terms of continued operation during disruption and ability to replace) - as a military target.
It would require a massive conspiracy even to attempt that.
Not even. Two field cops, one person to run the paperwork (maybe one of said cops), and a culture of brotherhood and silence to give winks and nods to these types of practices so long as there's not overwhelming proof of them. Unless you mean merely the attitude of "always give a fellow cop the benefit of the doubt, to the point of never investigating without evidence" is itself a conspiracy...in which case, said conspiracy already exists, in many districts.
First, this bill relates to delay of notification of warrants executed by Federal law enforcement, whereas you would go to the local police when you discover that your house has been broken into. So the Feds and the locals would have to be in cahoots.
Right. And the locals would get the official explanation that a "don't tell the suspect" search was conducted. Unless the Feds thought that maybe the locals would investigate, in which case the locals wouldn't be told about the warrant, or about the Feds being present, either. If they did investigate, the Feds could easily say the agents were somewhere else (misinformation, or denial of information, for any questions about information the public "shouldn't" know about already being standard procedure).
Second, this bill explicitly prohibits the seizure of any "tangible property" under any warrants whose notification is delayed pursuant to this section. Geez, read the friggin' thing! Skim it, even. It's a pretty hard provision to miss, even on a cursory inspection.
Yes. And, officially, no "tangible property" was taken in this scenario. The thievery itself remains illegal. The breakin to allow the theivery is legal, and cops are presumed innocent like everyone else. (There's better excuses, but for example: "Well, we did leave the window open while we searched; maybe the thief came in behind us, and looted the bedroom while we searched the kitchen?")
Third, the Feds don't get to bury the warrant indefinitely just because they don't indict you. A judge would have to continually grant extensions to the delay.
Just make the warrant explicitly say "until the case comes to trial" or similar. The trick is to word it so it becomes indefinite despite its initial intent.
I don't suppose we could somehow convince AOL to ship this code on space shuttles? I don't mean NASA's shuttles, I mean manufacture more until we're sick of seeing them (or, at least, receipts for us to pick them up at the nearest spaceport) in our mailboxes... ;)
Would that it were so, friend. Unfortunately, a senator that all the other senators despise is unlikely to be an effective senator, and as such is unlikely to be able to obtain for his or her state its fair share of pork, kickbacks, and other corruptive monies (not to mention more legitimate benefits, on those occasions when any are to be had). This results in that state getting the perceived shaft, which tends to disappoint the voters.
Good God man, give the guy a break. Its not like going to Windows Update from Linux is a crime (yet...).
What, that doesn't count under the DMCA as circumventing Microsoft's "effective" access control of tryiing to be the only OS game in town?
I am a little skeptical about the savage operation.
;)
Oh, come now. Sure, this might not be the highest-tech, most civilized operation on the planet, but they're hardly savages.
Maybe a different database? "You search your index; we'll search ours. Sure, our results will overlap, but we'll have some of the answers you don't and vice versa." Said differentiation will occur naturally unless strong efforts are made to keep Google's and Altavista's databases in sync.
Speed. Checking the sites on every search would take much longer than simply checking an internal database.
Yes. And it didn't have to be explained - it was pretty clear from the context - though the poster decided to put the entymology of the word up to give it more precise context.